California Governor Signs Sweeping Children’s Online Safety Bill


Article by Natasha Singer: “California will adopt a broad new approach to protecting children online after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Thursday that could transform how many social networks, games and other services treat minors.

Despite opposition from the tech industry, the State Legislature unanimously approved the bill at the end of August. It is the first state statute in the nation requiring online services likely to be used by youngsters to install wide-ranging safeguards for users under 18.

Among other things, the measure will require sites and apps to curb the risks that certain popular features — like allowing strangers to message one another — may pose to younger users. It will also require online services to turn on the highest privacy settings by default for children.

“We’re taking aggressive action in California to protect the health and well-being of our kids,” Governor Newsom said in a statement that heralded the new law as “bipartisan landmark legislation” aimed at protecting the well-being, data and privacy of children.

Called the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, the new legislation compels online services to take a proactive approach to safety — by designing their products and features from the outset with the “best interests” of young users in mind.

The California measure could apply to a wide range of popular digital products that people under 18 are likely to use: social networks, game platforms, connected toys, voice assistants and digital learning tools for schools. It could also affect children far beyond the state, prompting some services to introduce changes nationwide, rather than treat minors in California differently…(More)”.

Platformization of Urban Life


Book edited by Anke Strüver and Sybille Bauriedl: “The increasing platformization of urban life needs critical perspectives to examine changing everyday practices and power shifts brought about by the expansion of digital platforms mediating care-services, housing, and mobility. This book addresses new modes of producing urban spaces and societies. It brings both platform researchers and activists from various fields related to critical urban studies and labour activism into dialogue. The contributors engage with the socio-spatial and normative implications of platform-mediated urban everyday life and urban futures, going beyond a rigid techno-dystopian stance in order to include an understanding of platforms as sites of social creativity and exchange…(More)”.

What does AI Localism look like in action? A new series examining use cases on how cities govern AI


Series by Uma Kalkar, Sara Marcucci, Salwa Mansuri, and Stefaan Verhulst: “…We call local instances of AI governance ‘AI Localism.’ AI Localism refers to the governance actions—which include, but are not limited to, regulations, legislations, task forces, public committees, and locally-developed tools—taken by local decision-makers to address the use of AI within a city or regional state.

It is necessary to note, however, that the presence of AI Localism does not mean that robust national- and state-level AI policy are not needed. Whereas local governance seems fundamental in addressing local, micro-level issues, tailoring, for instance, by implementing policies for specific AI use circumstances, national AI governance should act as a key tool to complement local efforts and provide cities with a cohesive, guiding direction.

Finally, it is important to mention how AI Localism is not necessarily good governance of AI at the local level. Indeed, there have been several instances where local efforts to regulate and employ AI have encroached on public freedoms and hurt the public good….

Examining the current state of play in AI localism

To this end, The Governance Lab (The GovLab) has created the AI Localism project to collect a knowledge base and inform a taxonomy on the dimensions of local AI governance (see below). This initiative began in 2020 with the AI Localism canvas, which captures the frames under which local governance methods are developing. This series presents current examples of AI localism across the seven canvas frames of: 

  • Principles and Rights: foundational requirements and constraints of AI and algorithmic use in the public sector;
  • Laws and Policies: regulation to codify the above for public and private sectors;
  • Procurement: mandates around the use of AI in employment and hiring practices; 
  • Engagement: public involvement in AI use and limitations;
  • Accountability and Oversight: requirements for periodic reporting and auditing of AI use;
  • Transparency: consumer awareness about AI and algorithm use; and
  • Literacy: avenues to educate policymakers and the public about AI and data.

In this eight-part series, released weekly, we will present current examples of each frame of the AI localism canvas to identify themes among city- and state-led legislative actions. We end with ten lessons on AI localism for policymakers, data and AI experts, and the informed public to keep in mind as cities grow increasingly ‘smarter.’…(More)”.

Policy Choice and the Wisdom of Crowds


Paper by Nicholas Otis: “Using data from seven large-scale randomized experiments, I test whether crowds of academic experts can forecast the relative effectiveness of policy interventions. Eight-hundred and sixty-three academic experts provided 9,295 forecasts of the causal effects from these experiments, which span a diverse set of interventions (e.g., information provision, psychotherapy, soft-skills training), outcomes (e.g., consumption, COVID-19 vaccination, employment), and locations (Jordan, Kenya, Sweden, the United States). For each policy comparisons (a pair of policies and an outcome), I calculate the percent of crowd forecasts that correctly rank policies by their experimentally estimated treatment effects. While only 65% of individual experts identify which of two competing policies will have a larger causal effect, the average forecast from bootstrapped crowds of 30 experts identifies the better policy 86% of the time, or 92% when restricting analysis to pairs of policies who effects differ at the p < 0.10 level. Only 10 experts are needed to produce an 18-percentage point (27%) improvement in policy choice…(More)”.

Proof of Stake


Book by Vitalik Buterin and edited by Nathan Schneider: “The ideas behind Ethereum in the words of its founder, describing a radical vision for more than a digital currency—reinventing organizations, economics, and democracy itself in the age of the internet.

When he was only nineteen years old, in late 2013, Vitalik Buterin published a visionary paper outlining the ideas behind what would become Ethereum. He proposed to take what Bitcoin did for currency—replace government and corporate power with power shared among users—and apply it to everyday apps, organizations, and society as a whole. Now, less than a decade later, Ethereum is the second-most-valuable cryptocurrency and serves as the foundation for the weird new world of NFT artworks, virtual real estate in the metaverse, and decentralized autonomous organizations.

The essays in Proof of Stake have guided Ethereum’s community of radicals and builders. Here for the first time they are collected from across the internet for new readers. They reveal Buterin as a lively, creative thinker, relentlessly curious and adventuresome in exploring the consequences of his invention. His writing stands in contrast to the hype that so often accompanies crypto in the public imagination. He presents it instead as a fascinating set of social, economic, and political possibilities, opening a window into a conversation that far more of us could be having…(More)”.

Why its Time for a New Approach to Civic Tech


Article by Anthony Zacharzewski: “…It’s true that there has been some recent innovation around this theme, including tools designed to support audio and video-based deliberation…However, the needs of modern participation and democracy are changing in a far more fundamental way, and the civic tech field needs to do more to keep pace.

For years, civic tech has focused on the things that digital tools do well – data, numbers, and text. It has often emphasised written comments, voting ideas up and down, and the statistical analysis of responses. And perhaps most tellingly, it has focused on single events, whether participatory budgeting processes or major events such as the Conference on the Future of Europe. 

Many of these approaches are essentially digitised versions of physical processes, but we are starting to realise now that one-off processes are not enough. Rather, civic tech tools need to bring people into longer-term conversations, with wider participation. 

This is where the next generation of civic tech tools needs to focus. 

Today, it is easy for a participant in a participatory budgeting process to use a polished digital interface to suggest an idea or to vote.

However, nothing on these platforms enables people to stay in the democratic conversation once they have had their say, to stay informed on the issues in their area, or to find opportunities to participate elsewhere. Even platforms such as Decidim and Consul, which allow people to participate in multiple different processes, still have a fundamentally process- and discussion-based model…(More)”

Overcoming Data Graveyards in Official Statistics: Catalyzing Uptake and Use


Report by Trends and Open Data Watch: “The world is awash in information. Every day, an estimated 1.1 billion gigabytes of data are produced, and this number will increase as mobile connections continue to expand and new ways of gathering data are incorporated by the private and public sectors to improve their products and services. The volume of statistics published by government agencies such as National Statistics Offices (NSOs) has also grown. New technologies offer new ways of gathering, storing, and disseminating data and producers of official statistics are releasing more information in more detailed ways through data portals and other mechanisms than ever before.

Once produced, data may live forever, but far too often, the data produced are not what data users are looking for or users lack the awareness or technical skill to use the data. As a result, data fall into data graveyards (Custer, 2017) where they go unutilized and prevent evidence-informed policies from being made. This is dangerous particularly at a time when intersecting crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and energy and food insecurity put a premium on decision-making that incorporates the best data. In addition, public sector producers of data, who do so using public funds, need evidence of the use of their data to justify investments in data.

Data use remains a complex topic, with many policymakers and managers in national statistical system agencies unclear about this issue and how to improve their practices to ensure uptake and use. With conceptual clarity and best practices in hand, these actors can improve their practices and better address the needs of data users, while recognizing that a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not be suitable for countries at various stages of statistical capacity….(More)”

Five-year campaign breaks science’s citation paywall


Article by Dalmeet Singh Chawla: “The more than 60 million scientific-journal papers indexed by Crossref — the database that registers DOIs, or digital object identifiers, for many of the world’s academic publications — now contain reference lists that are free to access and reuse.

The milestone, announced on Twitter on 18 August, is the result of an effort by the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), launched in 2017. Open-science advocates have for years campaigned to make papers’ citation data accessible under liberal copyright licences so that they can be studied, and those analyses shared. Free access to citations enables researchers to identify research trends, lets them conduct studies on which areas of research need funding, and helps them to spot when scientists are manipulating citation counts….

The move means that bibliometricians, scientometricians and information scientists will be able to reuse citation data in any way they please under the most liberal copyright licence, called CC0. This, in turn, allows other researchers to build on their work.

Before I4OC, researchers generally had to obtain permission to access data from major scholarly databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, and weren’t able to share the samples.

However, the opening up of Crossref articles’ citations doesn’t mean that all the world’s scholarly content now has open references. Although most major international academic publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature (which publishes Nature) and Taylor & Francis, index their papers on Crossref, some do not. These often include regional and non-English-language publications.

I4OC co-founder Dario Taraborelli, who is science programme officer at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and based in San Francisco, California, says that the next challenge will be to encourage publishers who don’t already deposit reference data in Crossref to do so….(More)”.

Designing Digital Participatory Budgeting Platforms: Urban Biking Activism in Madrid


Paper by Maria Menendez-Blanco & Pernille Bjørn: “Civic technologies have the potential to support participation and influence decision-making in governmental processes. Digital participatory budgeting platforms are examples of civic technologies designed to support citizens in making proposals and allocating budgets. Investigating the empirical case of urban biking activists in Madrid, we explore how the design of the digital platform Decide Madrid impacted the collaborative practices involved in digital participatory budgeting. We found that the design of the platform made the interaction competitive, where individuals sought to gain votes for their single proposals, rather than consider the relations across proposals and the larger context of the city decisions, even if the institutional process rewarded collective support. In this way, the platforms’ design led to forms of individualistic, competitive, and static participation, therefore limiting the possibilities for empowering citizens in scoping and self-regulating participatory budgeting collaboratively. We argue that for digital participatory budgeting platforms to support cooperative engagements they must be revisable and reviewable while supporting accountability among participants and visibility of proposals and activities…(More)”.

How to Make an Entrepreneurial State: Why Innovation Needs Bureaucracy


Book by Rainer Kattel, Wolfgang Drechsler and Erkki Karo: “A ground-breaking account which shows how the public sector must adapt, but also persevere, in order to advance technology and innovation

From self-driving cars to smart grids, governments are experimenting with new technologies to significantly change the way we live. Innovation has become vitally important to states across the world.

Rainer Kattel, Wolfgang Drechsler and Erkki Karo explore how public bodies pursue innovation, looking at how new policies are designed and implemented. Spanning Europe, the USA and Asia, the authors show how different institutions finance new technologies and share cutting-edge information. They argue for the importance of ‘agile stability’, demonstrating that in order to successfully innovate, state organizations have to move nimbly like start-ups and yet ensure stability at the same time. And that, particularly in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, governments need both long-term policy and dynamic capabilities to handle crises.

This vital account explores the complex and often contradictory positions of innovating public bodies—and shows how they can overcome financial and political resistance to change for the good of us all…(More)”.